So, you admit you're just a troll? Kiss whatever little was left of your credibility goodbye.
Seriously, very few people here find you credible even in the very least sense of the word. Now you've just killed that.
I know it must make you angry to be so thoroughly beaten and exposed by loltsundere. She's pretty smart though, so you shouldn't feel too bad. She just proved that she writes, reasons, and debates better than you. There are still things that you can do better than her, like be a crazy ass self-admitted troll.
It's like WindUp said. Do I think, for example, that Neo-Nazis have a right to say the disgusting things they say and wave the horribly offensive flag they wave? Yes. They have that right. Do I LIKE it? No. Do I think that they SHOULD do those things? No. There is a rather distinguishable difference.
"I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - What kind of liberal would I be if I didn't stand by this? However, that doesn't mean that I should also wish that what you say should come to fruition, nor does it mean that I morally support your position. I do not support the church's choice to abuse their power in state affairs and I think that morally, they should keep to their religion and nothing more. However, they have a right to say what they want and I do not support removing that right.
Also, I can wish that politicians would use their freedom of speech to say "I appreciate your opinion Bishop, but this is a state matter. I'll see you in church."
I'm not saying that I'm just a troll. I'm pointing out how you fan the flames as if I was. Your posts are the ones devoid of content, Joe. That's more trollish than me. Nice try, Joe. Even if I was, your taking the bait is worse than my being a troll. But you do nothing wrong, I know.
Also, I can wish that politicians would usetheirfreedom of speech to say "I appreciate your opinion Bishop, but this is a state matter. I'll see you in church."
Also, I can wish that politicians would usetheirfreedom of speech to say "I appreciate your opinion Bishop, but this is a state matter. I'll see you in church."
Extremely well said. Brava.
That's exactly what I was saying. You were blaming the church when it was the Congressman that needed the Constitutional lesson. Funny how Joe forgot to mention that I pointed this out.
Your posts are the ones devoid of content, Joe. That's more trollish than me.
I'm 99% sure that, between his various degrees and curmudgeonly awesomeness, Joe is far better equipped to make a sensible, content-filled, and logically argumentative post than you. From what I've seen of your posts, you consider HTML tags to be valid rebuttals. Lawyers don't usually think in such simple "Internet Dickwad Theory" terms.
I'm 99% sure that, between his various degrees and curmudgeonly awesomeness, Joe is far better equipped to make a sensible, content-filled, and logically argumentative post than you.
I'll take that bet any day of the week. If you've been around for a while, you've seen that when Joe is proven wrong he ignores the argument entirely and lashes out with ad hominems while changing the subject. I use caustic comments all the time, but most often when someone is patently incorrect. But I also admit when I am wrong. Integrity +1.
Check out some old threads and you'll see Joe refuse to answer topical questions because he knows he's been proven wrong. The struggle to avoid the questions takes on a comical hue.
the truth is that Joe and others engage in the same caustic tactics that I do. But people here agree with the liberal viewpoint and ignore these identical actions. (Calling someone an asshole is fine, saying they hear things in their head is fine, as long as they don't share your viewpoint...) That makes people here thought police, not people who actually care about caustic comments. Think about that... Speaks much more about you than me. The simple truth is that when it comes to politics, there is no right or wrong answer. As I have said before, both parties are dysfunctional to a certain degree. But at the end of the day, reasonable and intelligent people can have different viewpoints. The same is true of many social issues.
A test: Watch Joe defend Obama's secret deal with big pharma to ensure that prices are NOT lowered. Oh, wait... watch him ignore that entirely. Come on, Joe... will you admit that Obama screwed up?
Funny how Joe forgot to mention that I pointed this out.
That makes people here thought police
A Tractor
*Facepalm*
But I also admit when I am wrong. Integrity +1.
I have yet to see this happen. And you're scoring yourself again.
Think about that...
But... then the thought police will get me.
On what I said, I am and have been unhappy with both the church and the politicians. The church for knowingly toting its unfair influence around on inappropriate issues, and the politicians for simply kowtowing.
Believe me Kilarney, it's not the political viewpoints or whatever other arghlbargl you were talking about that influences your reputation here...
the truth is that Joe and others engage in the same caustic tactics that I do. But people here agree with the liberal viewpoint and ignore these identical actions.
I think it's more that Joe is kind of likable whereas you tend come off as one of the most aggravating and pompous people I've ever met. You'll notice that when Joe goes all ad-hominem and offensive, no matter who he's arguing with, the subject doesn't immediately change to how annoying he is. This is not the case for you.
Not so. Any sensible person would tell you that they believe hate speech organizations should not play any role in state affairs, but that they should have free speech like everyone else because that's what the first amendment guarantees, and exceptions to that guarantee endanger everyone's freedom. In the words of a good friend of mine, loltsundere is more or less saying, "Have your opinions, but don't think that we care or want to hear about them."
Yep, freedom of speech influence in the government. The problem becomes where you can draw the line between the church influence and the will of the voters. If the majority of voters believe something is bad because of their religion, they may vote on a referendum that does not purport to have a religious basis, but the outcome will be in line with the values of those religious voters. You can't keep that from happening in a pure democracy.
Effectively, this means the religious values of the majority are being imposed on everyone else. It's not violating your freedom of religion unless you (a)have a religion and (b)the law is restricting your right to practice. Thus it isn't broadly unconstitutional.
By the way, I have absolutely no evidence at hand for this right now, so feel free to offer supplemental or contradictory material.
That's very funny. Integrity +1 indeed. It's nice how you've proven that you've forthrightly admitted that you were wrong by providing citations and links.
Check out some old threads and you'll see Joe refuse to answer topical questions because he knows he's been proven wrong. The struggle to avoid the questions takes on a comical hue.
. . . and I see you've provided citations and links to prove your point.
A test: Watch Joe defend Obama'ssecretdeal with big pharma to ensure that prices are NOT lowered. Oh, wait... watch him ignore that entirely. Come on, Joe... will you admit that Obama screwed up?
When was I appointed Lord High Protector of everything that Obama does? Quite frankly, it is not incumbent upon me to defend his every action. Also, it is not incumbent upon me to transcribe my every occurring thought to this forum. If this happened the way you report, I would be dismayed and angered. However, I have no obligation to record such here. I see from looking back that you have breathlessly reported his apparent malfeasance to the board, but, given your record of misrepresentation and self-admitted trolliness, I no longer read most of what you say because I find it unreliable and unbelievable. I read even less of your links.
I simply don't believe what you write about Obama's "secret" deal, not because of my love for Obama but because I know your character for truthfulness and trolliness. I will continue to disbelieve it until such time as I see it confirmed by an independent source. If I see it so confirmed, then I will be all, "Say it ain't so, Obama", and I will weep one perfect little tear before I go cry a river at the Lincoln Memorial (which I visit every day and twice on Sundays); but, as I noted before, I am in no way obligated to relate the particulars of my weeping fit on this forum.
Childish Tractor Image Used To Signify Kilarney's Favorite Colloquialism In A Typically Ham-Handed And Clumsy Manner
You're really obsessed with your "moving the goalposts" colloquialism, aren't you? You still haven't proven that you even understand your own favorite saying by linking or citing to one instance when someone on this board actually "moved the goalposts".
You're a sad, sad, obsessive little crazy ass self-admitted troll. I thought that even you would've taken the hint that no one cares to hear your shit after you were pwned so hard by loltsundere, but I guess you're just not smart enough to understand the pwnage. I feel sorry for you during the few instances when I pay any attention to you. It must be painful and difficult to live your life.
It bothers you that our democracy is working? Why should you get to choose who has freedom of speech? The whole point of a democracy is that everyone gets a voice. Just because you may not agree with them does not mean that you should trample over the Constitution. They've got a right of free speech. I may not agree with a lot of groups that lobby Congress, but I am not "bothered" at all by their right to do so. With religious interests, you have even greater protection since Congress is limited by the First Amendment. Ironically, you've got the least to lose, thanks to the First Amendment, and you're complaining the loudest.
Wait, what?
Thank you, Kate. It's not illegal, no, but the principle bothers me. It bothers me whenever the church swings its influence around a political issue.
I am dumbfounded by the fact that Kilarney either can't read or doesn't understand what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means. What it means is that no laws shall be made based on religious doctrine, as in respecting an establishment of religion. However, this amendment did exactly that!
That could be said to any one of us in any thread. Let's try not be petty.
I'm entirely serious. He triple-posted single sentence links that bumped the thread and generated zero discussion. That's what your Twitter account is for.
Wait, so instead of a government-run insurance option, the compromise is to have a federal agency oversee and negotiate preferred rates and benefits packages with private insurers? That's really not that much different than a public option. And the proposal still has a public option as a fallback? Am I reading this correctly?
Wait, so instead of a government-run insurance option, the compromise is to have a federal agency oversee and negotiate preferred rates and benefits packages with private insurers? That's really not that much different than a public option. And the proposal still has a public option as a fallback? Am I reading this correctly?
Maybe the naysayers just wanted it worded differently, something to take away the buzzwords.
Wait, so instead of a government-run insurance option, the compromise is to have a federal agency oversee and negotiate preferred rates and benefits packages with private insurers? That's really not that much different than a public option. And the proposal still has a public option as a fallback? Am I reading this correctly?
It is actually quite different and the "public option" as a fallback is toothless and would help only a very small fraction of people.
It is actually quite different and the "public option" as a fallback is toothless and would help only a very small fraction of people.
A single-payer model would be preferable, but having the public option available at all, and having a reasonably-priced plan negotiated with insurance companies, is still better than what we have now. Progress takes time. I think the insurance industry reforms in the bill will have enough impact by themselves.
Comments
Seriously, very few people here find you credible even in the very least sense of the word. Now you've just killed that.
I know it must make you angry to be so thoroughly beaten and exposed by loltsundere. She's pretty smart though, so you shouldn't feel too bad. She just proved that she writes, reasons, and debates better than you. There are still things that you can do better than her, like be a crazy ass self-admitted troll.
It's like WindUp said. Do I think, for example, that Neo-Nazis have a right to say the disgusting things they say and wave the horribly offensive flag they wave? Yes. They have that right. Do I LIKE it? No. Do I think that they SHOULD do those things? No. There is a rather distinguishable difference.
"I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - What kind of liberal would I be if I didn't stand by this? However, that doesn't mean that I should also wish that what you say should come to fruition, nor does it mean that I morally support your position. I do not support the church's choice to abuse their power in state affairs and I think that morally, they should keep to their religion and nothing more. However, they have a right to say what they want and I do not support removing that right.
Also, I can wish that politicians would use their freedom of speech to say "I appreciate your opinion Bishop, but this is a state matter. I'll see you in church."
Check out some old threads and you'll see Joe refuse to answer topical questions because he knows he's been proven wrong. The struggle to avoid the questions takes on a comical hue.
the truth is that Joe and others engage in the same caustic tactics that I do. But people here agree with the liberal viewpoint and ignore these identical actions. (Calling someone an asshole is fine, saying they hear things in their head is fine, as long as they don't share your viewpoint...) That makes people here thought police, not people who actually care about caustic comments. Think about that... Speaks much more about you than me. The simple truth is that when it comes to politics, there is no right or wrong answer. As I have said before, both parties are dysfunctional to a certain degree. But at the end of the day, reasonable and intelligent people can have different viewpoints. The same is true of many social issues.
A test: Watch Joe defend Obama's secret deal with big pharma to ensure that prices are NOT lowered. Oh, wait... watch him ignore that entirely. Come on, Joe... will you admit that Obama screwed up?
I see Joe on his tractor:
On what I said, I am and have been unhappy with both the church and the politicians. The church for knowingly toting its unfair influence around on inappropriate issues, and the politicians for simply kowtowing.
Believe me Kilarney, it's not the political viewpoints or whatever other arghlbargl you were talking about that influences your reputation here...
Effectively, this means the religious values of the majority are being imposed on everyone else. It's not violating your freedom of religion unless you (a)have a religion and (b)the law is restricting your right to practice. Thus it isn't broadly unconstitutional.
By the way, I have absolutely no evidence at hand for this right now, so feel free to offer supplemental or contradictory material.
I simply don't believe what you write about Obama's "secret" deal, not because of my love for Obama but because I know your character for truthfulness and trolliness. I will continue to disbelieve it until such time as I see it confirmed by an independent source. If I see it so confirmed, then I will be all, "Say it ain't so, Obama", and I will weep one perfect little tear before I go cry a river at the Lincoln Memorial (which I visit every day and twice on Sundays); but, as I noted before, I am in no way obligated to relate the particulars of my weeping fit on this forum. You're really obsessed with your "moving the goalposts" colloquialism, aren't you? You still haven't proven that you even understand your own favorite saying by linking or citing to one instance when someone on this board actually "moved the goalposts".
You're a sad, sad, obsessive little crazy ass self-admitted troll. I thought that even you would've taken the hint that no one cares to hear your shit after you were pwned so hard by loltsundere, but I guess you're just not smart enough to understand the pwnage. I feel sorry for you during the few instances when I pay any attention to you. It must be painful and difficult to live your life.